We chose Iraq over Pakistan because, as you indicated, Pakistan was and is an ally. Iraq was not. Also, again as you indicated, it was Iraq who had ignored the UN. In addition, Bush honestly believed Iraq had WMD - a belief that now appears to have been wrong. Pakistan certainly has not been the perfect ally, but Musharraf is one of the more moderate leaders in that part of the world and genuinely wants to improve relations with the West. His decision to allow Al-Quida a free rein in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area was a huge mistake and I think he has begun to see that.
Musharrif may not be anti-American, but he is a long way from moderate. He is a military dictator who gained power in a coup and will lose it in another coup or a revolution as in Iran. As in Iran, we are backing a pro-western strongman who does not have the support of his people. He will be soon be overthrown and replaced by an islamist state (perhaps even the Taliban) as in Iran 1979, only this time with nuclear weapons. And we will become an enemy of Pakistan due to our support of Musharrif. They will be an enemy of the US due to their sheltering of bin Ladin. There could be a nuclear war in Pakistan that they would lose
I appologize for my reverance of Ron Paul. I'll try to keep him out of the discussion unless I am on a Ron Paul thread. It was my intention to discuss Afghanistan policy, not push Ron Paul. Because of Ron Paul I got interested in why we didn't continue to pursue Al-Qaeda, but I am genuinely interested in the point of view of you and others. I never called you stupid and I never thought you were stupid - I think we agree at least on some points. I know I dismissed the democrats pretty quickly earlier, but I think I'll vote for Obama if he is running and Paul isn't because I trust he'll do a good job with foreign policy and I don't trust the rest of the candidates. I think foreign policy is very important. Obama may spend more than he should on federal programs, but I really don't have faith that the Republicans we have to choose from will do any different. As for Clinton, I just don't trust her. It irritates me that so many people who come off as intelligent blow off Paul as if he is a joke. Just because you and others are intelligent doesn't mean you are incapable of tunnel-vision and of being prejudiced. Like Red said, I think our alignment with Musharraf is very problematic. Musharraf is not overly popular among Pakistani's (you may have noticed once Bhutto was assassinated) and our support of an unpopular leader gives Pakistani's more reason to dislike us. Iraq was never a serious threat to our national defense, even if they had WMDs. I don't see how that is more important than unrelenting pursuit of Al-Qaeda. I also don't see how our envolvement in the internal politics of Pakistan trumps taking care of the murders of 3,000 US civilians, on American soil. The most notorious terrorist of our time is being harbored in Pakistan, but we are more concerned with regional stability and enforcing UN resolutions? I don't think that is a responsible use of my tax dollars. By the way, I'm pretty sure Musharraf isn't allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban free reign of that area of Pakistan where bin Laden is hiding. Musharraf doesn't have the capability of governing that region and he doesn't have the support of the people of that region. I think he actually tried to impose military force and was repelled.
Our alliance right now with Musharraf seems pretty much like our alliances in the past with the Taliban against the soviets and Saddam against Iran...In the end it will come tu bite us in the us again. Our leaders don't seem to know enough to realize that history repeats itself over and over again.
Musharraf is nothing more than a hyprocit stance in our policy. We support a military dictator yet overthrow one in Iraq to spread Democracy. Ugh.
